Lincoln Global, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2021

2020003800 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/236,672 08/15/2016 Joseph A. Daniel 22976/04181 7373
115182 7590 01/04/2021
Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP
1405 East 6th Street
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
MCGRATH, ERIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ip@lincolnelectric.com
ipdocket@calfee.com
wfrick@calfee.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSEPH A. DANIEL, STEPHEN COLE, and
STEVEN R. PETERS
____________

Appeal 2020-003800
Application 15/236,672
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 11–19.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Lincoln Global, Inc., a subsidiary of
Lincoln Electric Company, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 1–10 are withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1.
Appeal 2020-003800
Application 15/236,672
2
CLAIMS
Claim 11, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal.
11. A system for reducing spatter in a pulsed arc-welding
process, said system comprising a controller configured for:
tracking times of occurrence of short intervals during
pulse periods of a pulsed arc-welding process of the system;
estimating a temporal location of a short interval for at
least a next pulse period of the pulsed arc-welding process
based on the tracking;
determining an overlapping blanking interval for at least
the next pulse period based on the estimating, wherein the
overlapping blanking interval overlaps the short interval of at
least the next pulse period;
generating a blanking signal having the overlapping
blanking interval as a portion of the blanking signal;
controlling reducing a welding current through a welding
circuit path of the system, over at least an entirety of the short
interval for at least the next pulse period, based on the
overlapping blanking interval of the blanking signal; and
controlling slowing down a speed of an advancing wire
electrode based on a short between the advancing wire
electrode and a workpiece.

Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Manz US 3,809,853 May 7, 1974
Hamamoto US 5,270,516 Dec. 14, 1993
Koga US 6,627,850 B1 Sept. 30, 2003
Flood US 2003/0080101 A1 May 1, 2003

Appeal 2020-003800
Application 15/236,672
3
REJECTIONS3
Claims 11–14 and 16–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Manz, Hamamoto, and Koga.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Manz, Hamamoto, Koga, and Flood.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Manz, Hamamoto, and Koga
For claim 11, the Examiner finds that Manz discloses a system
comprising a controller configured for: tracking times of occurrence of short
intervals during pulse periods of a pulsed arc-welding process (citing Manz,
col. 2, ll. 38–39, Fig. 4); estimating a temporal location of a short interval for
at least a next pulse period of the pulsed arc welding process (“the short is
estimated to occur after a ‘predetermined time interval set by the adjustable
control C2’”; citing id. at col. 3, ll. 34–35, Fig. 4 (“‘normal arc interval’”));
determining an overlapping blanking interval (Fig. 4: IC in “cycle one,” IB +
IC in “cycle two”) for at least a next pulse period (“cycle two”) based on the
estimating (“the interval over which switch S1 or S2 is open;” citing id. at
col. 3, ll. 35–38), wherein the overlapping blanking interval (IB + IC)
overlaps the short interval (“‘normal short int’” of cycle two) of at least the
next pulse period; and generating a blanking signal (“the signal which opens
S1 or S2”) having the overlapping blanking interval as a portion of the
blanking signal. Final Act. 4–5.

3 The rejection of claims 11–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement has been
withdrawn. Ans. 4; Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2020-003800
Application 15/236,672
4
The Examiner finds that Manz fails to disclose how the
“predetermined time interval” is determined, and thus, does not disclose
estimating the temporal location of a short interval “based on the tracking,”
as recited in the “estimating” limitation. Final Act 5. The Examiner relies
on Hamamoto as teaching a controller for a pulsed arc welding system
configured for performing the “tracking” and “estimating” limitations of
claim 11. Id. (citing Hamamoto, col. 3, ll. 18–23). The Examiner
determines that modifying Manz by programming the controller to track
times and estimate a temporal location, as taught by Hamamoto, and using
this estimating to determine Manz’s “predetermined time interval,” would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, “because the step of
tracking times and estimating the location based on tracking allows better
prediction of transitions between intervals, and allows the optimal output
power to be provided.” Id. at 6.
Appellant contends that the applied combination fails to teach or
suggest “creating a blanking signal that has an overlapping blanking interval
based on tracking times of occurrence of short intervals, and using such a
blanking signal to reduce a welding current during a short interval of a next
pulse period.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends that Manz is concerned
with reducing current to prevent spatter by switching impedances in and out
of the welding circuit path. Id. Appellant asserts that Manz sets reference
time periods in a pre-determined manner (with no estimating or predicting)
to force the transitions from arc to short, or short to arc, if these transitions
have not naturally occurred. Id. Appellant contends that Manz does not
estimate a short interval for a next pulse period, but rather, sets, ahead of
time in a predetermined manner, maximum reference times to switch back
and forth between an arc state and a short state. Id.
Appeal 2020-003800
Application 15/236,672
5
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. Manz discloses that, in Figure
4(b), “[f]our time cycles have been illustrated with the cycles arbitrarily
selected to provide a complete showing of all possible conditions.” See
Manz, col. 4, ll. 27–30 (emphasis added). Accordingly, for “cycle one” the
arc interval (“normal arc int”) and corresponding short interval (“normal
short int”) are selected to show one possible condition, whereas for “cycle
two” the arc interval (“extended arc int”) and corresponding short interval
(“normal short int”) are selected to show another possible condition. See id.
at col. 4, l. 31–col. 5, l. 8. We disagree with the Examiner that cycle two is
“a next pulse period of the pulsed arc-welding process,” that is, the same
pulsed art-welding process, after cycle one. The arc interval and
corresponding short interval of “cycle three” and “cycle four” likewise are
selected to show two additional possible conditions. See id. at col. 5, l. 31–
col. 5, l. 8.
Manz discloses monitoring the arc and short circuit time intervals.
See Manz, col. 2, ll. 38–39. In Figure 4(b), cycle one represents the
condition where the arc interval is designated as “normal,” where the
electrode contacts the workpiece in a time period less than a reference arc
time interval. See id. at col. 4, ll. 33–35.
Manz discloses that “the reference times may be initiated in any
manner and be of any duration unrelated to the actual short circuit and arc
time durations respectively provided only that a consistant [sic] time
relationship exists between the reference times and the start of the short and
arc periods respectively.” See Manz, col. 6, ll. 2–7. The short circuit
interval and the arc interval are established at naturally occurring periods,
and the method involves generating a control signal after the reference time
Appeal 2020-003800
Application 15/236,672
6
has continued for a predetermined period of time beyond the naturally short
circuit period of time. See id. at col. 3, ll. 33–39, col. 6, claim 1.
Cycle two represents the condition where the energy input during the
arc interval does not permit the melt-off rate to drop below the feed rate, as
occurs when the arc interval extends past the reference arc time interval. See
Manz, col. 4, ll. 63–67. Once the reference arc time interval is reached, the
current level is dropped to IB, thereby reducing the energy input and melt-off
rate and causing a short to occur. See id. at col. 5, ll. 2–8. That is, the short
is forced to occur.
In Figure 4(b), cycle three represents the condition where the
transition from arc to short circuit is normal, but the short does not clear.
See Manz, col. 5, ll. 9–11. If the short circuit time interval extends beyond
the reference short circuit time interval, the delivered current is increased to
clear the short. See id. at col. 5, ll. 15–19. Lastly, “cycle four” represents
the condition where both the arc and short intervals are extended. See id. at
col. 5, ll. 25–26.
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence
that Manz discloses the limitations of “estimating a temporal location of a
short interval for at least a next pulse period of the pulsed arc-welding
process based on the tracking” of “times of occurrence of short intervals
during pulse periods of a pulsed arc-welding process of the system;
“determining an overlapping blanking interval for at least the next pulse
period based on the estimating, wherein the overlapping blanking interval
overlaps the short interval of at least the next pulse period”; “generating a
blanking signal having the overlapping blanking interval as a portion of the
blanking signal”; and “controlling reducing a welding current through a
welding circuit path of the system, over at least an entirety of the short
Appeal 2020-003800
Application 15/236,672
7
interval for at least the next pulse period, based on the overlapping blanking
interval of the blanking signal,” as recited in claim 11. Rather, Manz’s
cycles illustrated in Figure 4, which the Examiner relies upon as the claimed
“pulse periods of a pulsed arc-welding process,” represent four separate arc
processes, each characterized by separate conditions.
Appellant contends that Hamamoto describes predicting time lengths
since the transition from previous arcing to shorting to the next transition
from shorting to arcing, and predicting time lengths since the transition from
previous shorting to arcing to the next transition from arcing to shorting.
Appeal Br. 11–12 (citing Hamamoto, col. 3, ll. 4–26). Appellant contends
that Hamamoto does not teach or suggest using the predictions of time
lengths between transitions to determine when to reduce a welding current
during a short interval, and thus, provides no motivation to use the
predictions of time transitions in Manz to reduce a welding current during a
short interval. Id. at 12. Further, Appellant contends, Hamamoto does not
disclose “generating a signal that can be characterized as the blanking signal
of claim 11 . . . having an overlapping blanking interval, where the
overlapping blanking interval overlaps an estimated short interval of a next
pulse period.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellant asserts that to arrive at the
system recited in claim 11, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to
realize that the transition timing predictions of Hamamoto would need to be
modified and then applied to Manz to predict when a short interval is likely
to occur in a next pulse period, and would also have to realize the idea of
generating a blanking signal having an overlapping blanking interval. Id.
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. The Examiner has not
provided an adequate reason with rational underpinning to modify Manz in
view of Hamamoto to cure each of the above-noted deficiencies in Manz.
Appeal 2020-003800
Application 15/236,672
8
The Examiner further relies on Koga as teaching the final “controlling”
limitation recited in claim 11. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Koga, col. 3, ll. 18–23,
Fig. 4). As such, the Examiner’s use of Koga also does not cure the
deficiencies in Manz.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11, and dependent
claims 12–14 and 16–19, as unpatentable over Manz, Hamamoto, and Koga.

Obviousness over Manz, Hamamoto, Koga, and Flood
The Examiner’s reliance on Flood in rejecting claim 15 does not cure
the deficiency in the rejection of parent claim 11. Final Act. 8. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 15 as unpatentable over Manz, Hamamoto,
Koga, and Flood for the same reasons as claim 11.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11–14, 16–19 103(a) Manz, Hamamoto,
Koga
11–14, 16–
19
15 103(a) Manz, Hamamoto,
Koga, Flood
15
Overall
Outcome
11–19

REVERSED